£1.47m underspend predicted for year as West Yokshire Fire and Rescue Authority bids to meet Government targets

West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority predicts it will underspend by £1.47 million this financial year after slashing its wage bill as part of huge budget cutbacks, a new report confirms.

The document, which will be discussed by the authority’s finance and resource committee on Friday, shows it spent £1.12 million less on ‘whole-time’ firefighters than it had budgeted for this financial year – saying it lost 12 firefighters above the normal retirement profile and had reduced the amount it spent on overtime.

The body also spent £258,000 less than forecast on retained firefighters, but £457,000 more than expected on support staff because of the cost of early retirement and voluntary severance as part of a fundamental review last October.

However, it says it expects that once the review is fully implemented, there will be ongoing revenue savings of £2.5 million.

The authority implemented a recruitment freeze in January 2010 and since then, jobs have been lost through retirements.

The report says: “Members will be aware that this year represents the second year of the spending review with the authority suffering a significant loss in revenue support grant and is anticipating further significant reductions in the next two years.

Promoted stories

“The main strategy for delivering the required savings is the control of salaries expenditure through non-recruitment and the control of overtime which is reflected in the early expenditure forecast.

“The latest forecast indicates there will be an overall under spending of £1.47m in the current financial year.”

The document also confirms firefighters have been awarded a one per cent pay rise from June 1 this year, with £450,000 allocated from a contingency fund to pay for it.

The authority has previously announced proposals to save £8 million as part of the coalition Government’s drive to reduce public spending.

Share article

That sum reportedly equates to 200 jobs, the closure of 11 fire stations including Haworth, Shipley and Idle, substituting them with five new ones, and the withdrawal of a number of appliances.

The proposals, now in the middle of a three-month period of public consultation, also include reducing the number of pumps at Fairweather Green.

Promoted Stories

Comments (17)

£1.47m underspend predicted for year as West Yokshire Fire and Rescue Authority bids to meet Government targets

RollandSmoke says...9:28am Tue 27 Nov 12

As George Osborne has managed to make no progress whatsoever in reducing the deficit that these cuts were imposed to address it is looking like further cuts to the tune of around £20bn between now and 2018 are going to be needed. Well done to WYF for their financial prudence, but how much further can yo go?

As George Osborne has managed to make no progress whatsoever in reducing the deficit that these cuts were imposed to address it is looking like further cuts to the tune of around £20bn between now and 2018 are going to be needed. Well done to WYF for their financial prudence, but how much further can yo go?RollandSmoke

As George Osborne has managed to make no progress whatsoever in reducing the deficit that these cuts were imposed to address it is looking like further cuts to the tune of around £20bn between now and 2018 are going to be needed. Well done to WYF for their financial prudence, but how much further can yo go?

Score: 0

Sarah Covell says...9:46am Tue 27 Nov 12

They are spending less on operational fire fighters BUT have increased the number of staff paid between £50 -55 THOUSAND pounds a year by 100% - it was 15 it is now 30. And that is just one example of how they are cutting coal face provision and keeping the top table in tact. These cuts will lead to deaths - read what we say at www.firecutscostlive s.blogspot.co.uk and tomorrow learn how much the cheif fire officer gets paid whilst his fire fighters do the dirty work and suffer.

They are spending less on operational fire fighters BUT have increased the number of staff paid between £50 -55 THOUSAND pounds a year by 100% - it was 15 it is now 30. And that is just one example of how they are cutting coal face provision and keeping the top table in tact. These cuts will lead to deaths - read what we say at www.firecutscostlive
s.blogspot.co.uk
and tomorrow learn how much the cheif fire officer gets paid whilst his fire fighters do the dirty work and suffer.Sarah Covell

They are spending less on operational fire fighters BUT have increased the number of staff paid between £50 -55 THOUSAND pounds a year by 100% - it was 15 it is now 30. And that is just one example of how they are cutting coal face provision and keeping the top table in tact. These cuts will lead to deaths - read what we say at www.firecutscostlive s.blogspot.co.uk and tomorrow learn how much the cheif fire officer gets paid whilst his fire fighters do the dirty work and suffer.

Score: 0

RollandSmoke says...10:05am Tue 27 Nov 12

You can't begrudge the bigwigs their wages. It might not look like they're doing much but who knows what they're doing for the benefit of the fire service behind closed doors at lodge meetings and when networking on the golf course.

You can't begrudge the bigwigs their wages. It might not look like they're doing much but who knows what they're doing for the benefit of the fire service behind closed doors at lodge meetings and when networking on the golf course.RollandSmoke

You can't begrudge the bigwigs their wages. It might not look like they're doing much but who knows what they're doing for the benefit of the fire service behind closed doors at lodge meetings and when networking on the golf course.

Score: 0

vax2002 says...10:43am Tue 27 Nov 12

Pretty much common sense that as businesses flee West Yorkshire due to the M62 fiasco, the risk of serious fire reduces. The county is dying on it's feet, you can not get goods in and out due to the roads situation and no end is in sight. Business have no choice but to move out, fire risk changes from property to empty run down buildings. The service will be trimmed to match the risks.

Pretty much common sense that as businesses flee West Yorkshire due to the M62 fiasco, the risk of serious fire reduces.
The county is dying on it's feet, you can not get goods in and out due to the roads situation and no end is in sight.
Business have no choice but to move out, fire risk changes from property to empty run down buildings.
The service will be trimmed to match the risks.vax2002

Pretty much common sense that as businesses flee West Yorkshire due to the M62 fiasco, the risk of serious fire reduces. The county is dying on it's feet, you can not get goods in and out due to the roads situation and no end is in sight. Business have no choice but to move out, fire risk changes from property to empty run down buildings. The service will be trimmed to match the risks.

Score: 0

johnhem says...2:08pm Tue 27 Nov 12

the risk of serious fire reduces? are you mad? all those empty buildings will be going up in smoke before long and then lets see what "savings" they have made. all it takes is one huge fire and those savings put them way into them red. how much extra damage will be caused because of the extra distance engines have to travel to get to the fire?

the risk of serious fire reduces? are you mad? all those empty buildings will be going up in smoke before long and then lets see what "savings" they have made. all it takes is one huge fire and those savings put them way into them red. how much extra damage will be caused because of the extra distance engines have to travel to get to the fire?johnhem

the risk of serious fire reduces? are you mad? all those empty buildings will be going up in smoke before long and then lets see what "savings" they have made. all it takes is one huge fire and those savings put them way into them red. how much extra damage will be caused because of the extra distance engines have to travel to get to the fire?

Score: 0

vax2002 says...2:24pm Tue 27 Nov 12

johnhem wrote…

the risk of serious fire reduces? are you mad? all those empty buildings will be going up in smoke before long and then lets see what "savings" they have made. all it takes is one huge fire and those savings put them way into them red. how much extra damage will be caused because of the extra distance engines have to travel to get to the fire?

Empty buildings are a lower risk than buildings full of stock, goods and peoples places of employment. An empty building goes up, the structure burns, not the stock inside , the risk is limited to surrounding the fire, a building full of stock or people goes up and the risk is amplified many times..

[quote][p][bold]johnhem[/bold] wrote:
the risk of serious fire reduces? are you mad? all those empty buildings will be going up in smoke before long and then lets see what "savings" they have made. all it takes is one huge fire and those savings put them way into them red. how much extra damage will be caused because of the extra distance engines have to travel to get to the fire?[/p][/quote]Empty buildings are a lower risk than buildings full of stock, goods and peoples places of employment.
An empty building goes up, the structure burns, not the stock inside , the risk is limited to surrounding the fire, a building full of stock or people goes up and the risk is amplified many times..vax2002

johnhem wrote…

the risk of serious fire reduces? are you mad? all those empty buildings will be going up in smoke before long and then lets see what "savings" they have made. all it takes is one huge fire and those savings put them way into them red. how much extra damage will be caused because of the extra distance engines have to travel to get to the fire?

Empty buildings are a lower risk than buildings full of stock, goods and peoples places of employment. An empty building goes up, the structure burns, not the stock inside , the risk is limited to surrounding the fire, a building full of stock or people goes up and the risk is amplified many times..

Score: 0

Marty12 says...4:07pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Sarah Covell wrote…

They are spending less on operational fire fighters BUT have increased the number of staff paid between £50 -55 THOUSAND pounds a year by 100% - it was 15 it is now 30. And that is just one example of how they are cutting coal face provision and keeping the top table in tact. These cuts will lead to deaths - read what we say at www.firecutscostlive s.blogspot.co.uk and tomorrow learn how much the cheif fire officer gets paid whilst his fire fighters do the dirty work and suffer.

Always good to get the union point of view. Wage rises are a bad thing? Oh, only for those who have worked hard in their job and now lead the service; of course!

[quote][p][bold]Sarah Covell[/bold] wrote:
They are spending less on operational fire fighters BUT have increased the number of staff paid between £50 -55 THOUSAND pounds a year by 100% - it was 15 it is now 30. And that is just one example of how they are cutting coal face provision and keeping the top table in tact. These cuts will lead to deaths - read what we say at www.firecutscostlive s.blogspot.co.uk and tomorrow learn how much the cheif fire officer gets paid whilst his fire fighters do the dirty work and suffer.[/p][/quote]Always good to get the union point of view. Wage rises are a bad thing? Oh, only for those who have worked hard in their job and now lead the service; of course!Marty12

Sarah Covell wrote…

They are spending less on operational fire fighters BUT have increased the number of staff paid between £50 -55 THOUSAND pounds a year by 100% - it was 15 it is now 30. And that is just one example of how they are cutting coal face provision and keeping the top table in tact. These cuts will lead to deaths - read what we say at www.firecutscostlive s.blogspot.co.uk and tomorrow learn how much the cheif fire officer gets paid whilst his fire fighters do the dirty work and suffer.

Always good to get the union point of view. Wage rises are a bad thing? Oh, only for those who have worked hard in their job and now lead the service; of course!

Score: 0

angry bradfordian says...4:32pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Marty12 wrote…

Sarah Covell wrote…

They are spending less on operational fire fighters BUT have increased the number of staff paid between £50 -55 THOUSAND pounds a year by 100% - it was 15 it is now 30. And that is just one example of how they are cutting coal face provision and keeping the top table in tact. These cuts will lead to deaths - read what we say at www.firecutscostlive s.blogspot.co.uk and tomorrow learn how much the cheif fire officer gets paid whilst his fire fighters do the dirty work and suffer.

Always good to get the union point of view. Wage rises are a bad thing? Oh, only for those who have worked hard in their job and now lead the service; of course!

I find it interesting the unions were saying that everyone should listen to the management of the fire service when they warned about the dangers of closing Idle Fire Station as they were the people who knew best. Now the management are endorsing something they don't believe in the management are government poodles!

[quote][p][bold]Marty12[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Sarah Covell[/bold] wrote:
They are spending less on operational fire fighters BUT have increased the number of staff paid between £50 -55 THOUSAND pounds a year by 100% - it was 15 it is now 30. And that is just one example of how they are cutting coal face provision and keeping the top table in tact. These cuts will lead to deaths - read what we say at www.firecutscostlive s.blogspot.co.uk and tomorrow learn how much the cheif fire officer gets paid whilst his fire fighters do the dirty work and suffer.[/p][/quote]Always good to get the union point of view. Wage rises are a bad thing? Oh, only for those who have worked hard in their job and now lead the service; of course![/p][/quote]I find it interesting the unions were saying that everyone should listen to the management of the fire service when they warned about the dangers of closing Idle Fire Station as they were the people who knew best.
Now the management are endorsing something they don't believe in the management are government poodles!angry bradfordian

Marty12 wrote…

Sarah Covell wrote…

They are spending less on operational fire fighters BUT have increased the number of staff paid between £50 -55 THOUSAND pounds a year by 100% - it was 15 it is now 30. And that is just one example of how they are cutting coal face provision and keeping the top table in tact. These cuts will lead to deaths - read what we say at www.firecutscostlive s.blogspot.co.uk and tomorrow learn how much the cheif fire officer gets paid whilst his fire fighters do the dirty work and suffer.

Always good to get the union point of view. Wage rises are a bad thing? Oh, only for those who have worked hard in their job and now lead the service; of course!

I find it interesting the unions were saying that everyone should listen to the management of the fire service when they warned about the dangers of closing Idle Fire Station as they were the people who knew best. Now the management are endorsing something they don't believe in the management are government poodles!

Score: 0

thruth9211 says...5:29pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Simple, just dont attend BIG WIGs home when a fire has occurred and say oooooooooooops CUTs CUTs

Simple, just dont attend BIG WIGs home when a fire has occurred and say oooooooooooops
CUTs CUTsthruth9211

Simple, just dont attend BIG WIGs home when a fire has occurred and say oooooooooooops CUTs CUTs

Score: 0

thruth9211 says...5:32pm Tue 27 Nov 12

The government is cutting funds to essential services such as fire, police and health Am sure there are many other sectors that can have their budgets cut, such as free money for those that are not working, bringing the death penalty for convicts, as they do drain alot of funds and finally the military who do not need to invade countries

The government is cutting funds to essential services such as fire, police and health
Am sure there are many other sectors that can have their budgets cut, such as free money for those that are not working,
bringing the death penalty for convicts, as they do drain alot of funds and finally the military who do not need to invade countriesthruth9211

The government is cutting funds to essential services such as fire, police and health Am sure there are many other sectors that can have their budgets cut, such as free money for those that are not working, bringing the death penalty for convicts, as they do drain alot of funds and finally the military who do not need to invade countries

Score: 0

Sarah Covell says...5:44pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Marty12 - Always good to get the union point of view. Wage rises are a bad thing? Oh, only for those who have worked hard in their job and now lead the service; of course! i am not the Fire Brigades Union - just a member of the public along with many other members of the west yorkshire public that think that cuts in emergency services are wrong and badly thought through - if i want a poodle i will go to the kennel club - i want fire authority members who stand up and fight the Condem cuts and if that menas telling the Overpaid over egoed Simon Pilling he is wrong so be it.

Marty12 - Always good to get the union point of view. Wage rises are a bad thing? Oh, only for those who have worked hard in their job and now lead the service; of course!
i am not the Fire Brigades Union - just a member of the public along with many other members of the west yorkshire public that think that cuts in emergency services are wrong and badly thought through - if i want a poodle i will go to the kennel club - i want fire authority members who stand up and fight the Condem cuts and if that menas telling the Overpaid over egoed Simon Pilling he is wrong so be it.Sarah Covell

Marty12 - Always good to get the union point of view. Wage rises are a bad thing? Oh, only for those who have worked hard in their job and now lead the service; of course! i am not the Fire Brigades Union - just a member of the public along with many other members of the west yorkshire public that think that cuts in emergency services are wrong and badly thought through - if i want a poodle i will go to the kennel club - i want fire authority members who stand up and fight the Condem cuts and if that menas telling the Overpaid over egoed Simon Pilling he is wrong so be it.

Score: 0

Sarah Covell says...5:44pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Marty12 - Always good to get the union point of view. Wage rises are a bad thing? Oh, only for those who have worked hard in their job and now lead the service; of course! i am not the Fire Brigades Union - just a member of the public along with many other members of the west yorkshire public that think that cuts in emergency services are wrong and badly thought through - if i want a poodle i will go to the kennel club - i want fire authority members who stand up and fight the Condem cuts and if that menas telling the Overpaid over egoed Simon Pilling he is wrong so be it.

Marty12 - Always good to get the union point of view. Wage rises are a bad thing? Oh, only for those who have worked hard in their job and now lead the service; of course!
i am not the Fire Brigades Union - just a member of the public along with many other members of the west yorkshire public that think that cuts in emergency services are wrong and badly thought through - if i want a poodle i will go to the kennel club - i want fire authority members who stand up and fight the Condem cuts and if that menas telling the Overpaid over egoed Simon Pilling he is wrong so be it.Sarah Covell

Marty12 - Always good to get the union point of view. Wage rises are a bad thing? Oh, only for those who have worked hard in their job and now lead the service; of course! i am not the Fire Brigades Union - just a member of the public along with many other members of the west yorkshire public that think that cuts in emergency services are wrong and badly thought through - if i want a poodle i will go to the kennel club - i want fire authority members who stand up and fight the Condem cuts and if that menas telling the Overpaid over egoed Simon Pilling he is wrong so be it.

Score: 0

johnhem says...11:40pm Tue 27 Nov 12

vax2002 wrote…

johnhem wrote…

the risk of serious fire reduces? are you mad? all those empty buildings will be going up in smoke before long and then lets see what "savings" they have made. all it takes is one huge fire and those savings put them way into them red. how much extra damage will be caused because of the extra distance engines have to travel to get to the fire?

Empty buildings are a lower risk than buildings full of stock, goods and peoples places of employment. An empty building goes up, the structure burns, not the stock inside , the risk is limited to surrounding the fire, a building full of stock or people goes up and the risk is amplified many times..

empty buildings are very rarely that, there are often pallets and paper and other things that will burn nicely. add to that the the squatters and homeless that break in, the prozzies and plain old nosy/anything worth nicking crews and you have a fire ready to start. an "empty" building causes a lot of work for the firemen when it burns, you don't need it to be full of stock. obviously it would be fiercer but once it takes hold the next door buildings are just as much at risk as are the attending firemen trying to stop it collapsing into the streets and other close by buildings that could be full of stock. my point is simple, it only needs one large fire (like the one on sunbridge rd not long back) and that saving is (sorry) up in smoke, and they are running at a loss instead. add to that the house fire a few miles away, who will be attending that when the engines have been sold and firemen numbers cut? do you attend the house fire and possibly save lives or the huge mill and try to save adjoining businesses? without the staff you can't do both.

[quote][p][bold]vax2002[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]johnhem[/bold] wrote:
the risk of serious fire reduces? are you mad? all those empty buildings will be going up in smoke before long and then lets see what "savings" they have made. all it takes is one huge fire and those savings put them way into them red. how much extra damage will be caused because of the extra distance engines have to travel to get to the fire?[/p][/quote]Empty buildings are a lower risk than buildings full of stock, goods and peoples places of employment.
An empty building goes up, the structure burns, not the stock inside , the risk is limited to surrounding the fire, a building full of stock or people goes up and the risk is amplified many times..[/p][/quote]empty buildings are very rarely that, there are often pallets and paper and other things that will burn nicely.
add to that the the squatters and homeless that break in, the prozzies and plain old nosy/anything worth nicking crews and you have a fire ready to start.
an "empty" building causes a lot of work for the firemen when it burns, you don't need it to be full of stock. obviously it would be fiercer but once it takes hold the next door buildings are just as much at risk as are the attending firemen trying to stop it collapsing into the streets and other close by buildings that could be full of stock.
my point is simple, it only needs one large fire (like the one on sunbridge rd not long back) and that saving is (sorry) up in smoke, and they are running at a loss instead. add to that the house fire a few miles away, who will be attending that when the engines have been sold and firemen numbers cut? do you attend the house fire and possibly save lives or the huge mill and try to save adjoining businesses? without the staff you can't do both.johnhem

vax2002 wrote…

johnhem wrote…

the risk of serious fire reduces? are you mad? all those empty buildings will be going up in smoke before long and then lets see what "savings" they have made. all it takes is one huge fire and those savings put them way into them red. how much extra damage will be caused because of the extra distance engines have to travel to get to the fire?

Empty buildings are a lower risk than buildings full of stock, goods and peoples places of employment. An empty building goes up, the structure burns, not the stock inside , the risk is limited to surrounding the fire, a building full of stock or people goes up and the risk is amplified many times..

empty buildings are very rarely that, there are often pallets and paper and other things that will burn nicely. add to that the the squatters and homeless that break in, the prozzies and plain old nosy/anything worth nicking crews and you have a fire ready to start. an "empty" building causes a lot of work for the firemen when it burns, you don't need it to be full of stock. obviously it would be fiercer but once it takes hold the next door buildings are just as much at risk as are the attending firemen trying to stop it collapsing into the streets and other close by buildings that could be full of stock. my point is simple, it only needs one large fire (like the one on sunbridge rd not long back) and that saving is (sorry) up in smoke, and they are running at a loss instead. add to that the house fire a few miles away, who will be attending that when the engines have been sold and firemen numbers cut? do you attend the house fire and possibly save lives or the huge mill and try to save adjoining businesses? without the staff you can't do both.

Score: 0

Another Landless Peasant says...12:33am Wed 28 Nov 12

I hope 10 Downing Street burns down.

I hope 10 Downing Street burns down.Another Landless Peasant

I hope 10 Downing Street burns down.

Score: 0

Another Landless Peasant says...12:34am Wed 28 Nov 12

...and number 11

...and number 11Another Landless Peasant

...and number 11

Score: 0

johnhem says...1:15am Wed 28 Nov 12

there's always a chance there, the lights are on but no-ones home ;-)

there's always a chance there, the lights are on but no-ones home ;-)johnhem

there's always a chance there, the lights are on but no-ones home ;-)

Score: 0

Marty12 says...1:18pm Fri 30 Nov 12

Sarah Covell wrote…

Marty12 - Always good to get the union point of view. Wage rises are a bad thing? Oh, only for those who have worked hard in their job and now lead the service; of course! i am not the Fire Brigades Union - just a member of the public along with many other members of the west yorkshire public that think that cuts in emergency services are wrong and badly thought through - if i want a poodle i will go to the kennel club - i want fire authority members who stand up and fight the Condem cuts and if that menas telling the Overpaid over egoed Simon Pilling he is wrong so be it.

Sorry "Sarah", unlike you I don't know the fire chief, so can't comment on his personality. I do understand how the government will enforce spending restrictions however, and know the chief and the Authority have very little room for manouvre. So how would you achieve the savings that are required? (And let's not waste time with the "sack the chiefs" union line, purlease!).

[quote][p][bold]Sarah Covell[/bold] wrote:
Marty12 - Always good to get the union point of view. Wage rises are a bad thing? Oh, only for those who have worked hard in their job and now lead the service; of course! i am not the Fire Brigades Union - just a member of the public along with many other members of the west yorkshire public that think that cuts in emergency services are wrong and badly thought through - if i want a poodle i will go to the kennel club - i want fire authority members who stand up and fight the Condem cuts and if that menas telling the Overpaid over egoed Simon Pilling he is wrong so be it.[/p][/quote]Sorry "Sarah", unlike you I don't know the fire chief, so can't comment on his personality. I do understand how the government will enforce spending restrictions however, and know the chief and the Authority have very little room for manouvre. So how would you achieve the savings that are required? (And let's not waste time with the "sack the chiefs" union line, purlease!).Marty12

Sarah Covell wrote…

Marty12 - Always good to get the union point of view. Wage rises are a bad thing? Oh, only for those who have worked hard in their job and now lead the service; of course! i am not the Fire Brigades Union - just a member of the public along with many other members of the west yorkshire public that think that cuts in emergency services are wrong and badly thought through - if i want a poodle i will go to the kennel club - i want fire authority members who stand up and fight the Condem cuts and if that menas telling the Overpaid over egoed Simon Pilling he is wrong so be it.

Sorry "Sarah", unlike you I don't know the fire chief, so can't comment on his personality. I do understand how the government will enforce spending restrictions however, and know the chief and the Authority have very little room for manouvre. So how would you achieve the savings that are required? (And let's not waste time with the "sack the chiefs" union line, purlease!).

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standardards Organisations's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a compaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here